Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

Perhaps Luther was simply wrong. Why should I defend him? He was 
living in an age when no-one would complain at him saying that Balaam 
was truly able to predict the future. I have not said that on this 
list and I don't feel the need to do so, although I do not rule it our 
a priori. Even conservatives today accept that Biblical prophecy is 
usually about the near future rather than many centuries in advance. 
There was perhaps a contemporary threat from Kittim, so why take 
Balaam as referring to the distant future?

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[5]: Gilgamesh and Genesis
Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date:    22/01/2000 18:39


I think you forgot that I wrote that Ilgen changed Luther from prophecy to a 
vaticinium. How do you account for Luther?

NPL

> -----Original Message-----
> From:     Peter Kirk [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org] 
> Sent:     Sunday, 23 January, 2000 06:32
> To:     Biblical Hebrew
> Subject:     Re[4]: Gilgamesh and Genesis 
>
> Ilgen's views make sense, especially to those who a priori reject real 
> prophecy, but then I don't suppose he completed the circle to argue
> that Assyria is not mentioned in the Pentateuch. But did Alexander
> come by ship from Kittim/Cyprus? I thought he came overland. But the 
> Sea Peoples did arrive by sea from that general direction, and at a 
> time not so distant from that of Balaam soon after the Exodus. Maybe
> Balaam was just seeing the trends of current events: these Sea Peoples 
> who are already arriving are going to prove disastrous for Assyria and 
> "Eber".
>
> Peter Kirk
>
>
> ______________________________ Reply Separator 
> _________________________________
> Subject: Re[3]: Gilgamesh and Genesis 
> Author:  <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet 
> Date:    22/01/2000 12:06
>
>
> And don't forget that  Luther saw these verses as referring to the Romans 
> (a
> prophecy). I have pointed to the fact that Karl David Ilgen in 1797
> reinterpreted Luther and saw it as a vaticinium ex eventur talking about 
> Alexander.
>
> NPL
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:        Peter Kirk [SMTP:peter_kirk AT sil.org] 
> > Sent:        Saturday, 22 January, 2000 02:47
> > To:        Biblical Hebrew
> > Subject:        Re[2]: Gilgamesh and Genesis 
> >
> > Don't forget the reference to Asshur, or Assyria, in Numbers 24:22,24, 
> > on the lips of Balaam from the Euphrates (22:5) You may want to argue 
> > that these verses are a later addition or evidence for late dating.
> > But beware of circular reasoning: don't excise these verses as late
> > because you assume that Assyria cannot be mentioned in the Pentateuch 
> > and then argue from your edited text that Assyria is indeed not
> > mentioned in the Pentateuch.
> >
> > Peter Kirk
> >
> <snip>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: npl AT teol.ku.dk 
> To unsubscribe, forward this message to
> $subst('Email.Unsub')
> To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.